Williams v. USA et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
ROGER WILLIAMS 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	No. 4:22-cv-942-DPM
USA and INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE
ORDER
DEFENDANTS
Williams' s motion for some relief from the Court's Order setting
aside the jury's verdict and from its Amended Judgment is denied.
First, the Court stands by its post-trial decision that- given Williams' s
testimony about what he knew, did, and didn't do-the United States
was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 	E.g., Colosimo v. United
States, 630 F.3d 749, 753 (8th Cir. 2011). 	Second, the Court continues to
believe 	that 	the 	jury 	instructions 	as 	a 	whole, 	and 	the 	willfulness
instruction 	in 	particular, 	correctly 	stated 	the 	governing 	law.
E.g., 	Oppliger v. 	United States, 	637 F.3d 889, 893-95 (8th Cir. 2011).
As 	the 	parties 	hashed 	out 	in 	limine, 	assurances 	are 	relevant 	to
willfulness - 	especially on recklessness. 	Doc. 39 at 3. 	Neither Williams
nor 	the 	United 	States 	objected 	to 	the 	willfulness 	instruction.
Indeed, Williams sought an instruction along these lines because the
assurances were the core of his defense. 	The Court sees no error, plain
or otherwise; 	but if error there was, Williams invited it. 	Starks 	v.
Case 4:22-cv-00942-DPM Document 78 Filed 11/05/25 Page 1 of 2

Rent-A-Center, 58 F.3d 358, 362 (8th Cir. 1995). 	Third, 	the jury was
concerned about the practical effect of its verdicts. 	Again, the parties
and the Court agreed on an accurate answer to the jury's question.
Fourth, 	no 	miscarriage of justice occurred. 	Niemiec v. 	Union Pacific
Railroad Co., 449 F.3d 854,858 (8th Cir. 2006). Three reconcilable truths
are supported by the record in this case: 	Williams was a responsible
person; he was assured by his bosses that the taxes would be paid over;
and his failure to do so while paying other obligations was nonetheless
willful as a matter of law under the strict precedent. 	Motion for new
trial or other relief, Doc . 75, denied.
So Ordered.
~5k!lcfh
D .P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
-2 -
Case 4:22-cv-00942-DPM Document 78 Filed 11/05/25 Page 2 of 2